Canadian Ranger Rifles, 2007

Last summer, I examined a number of rifles that the RANGERS were shooting at our range. They seemed to be pretty sorry specimens! The numbers matched on the bolts, but everything else looked mixed up. The trigger pulls were awful on every one, the safety was malfunctioning on two of them. One had really loose timber, and another was severely cord worn. One lady couldn't hit anything, so I asked to inspect her rifle. It was equipped with the BRITISH stamped ladder sight, but it was installed without the little collar! It was free to move back and forth a quarter inch! The bedding was incorrect on EVERY rifle! The oldest one was 1942, the youngest 1949. I offered to put the defects right, but was told that I would have to go through official channels for permission. Sounds like a headache! If those rifles were mine, I would be tempted to part them out, rather than use them. A really common problem with LB rifles is a defective safety. The cocking piece slips off the sear, if you pull the trigger with the safety engaged. This is most common with the "kicked leg" safety. Hope someone finds this interesting.

What location was that? All of my Patrol's rifles are in very good mechanical and cosmetic condition. Of course, mine '49 Long Branch is a little more beat up than when I got it issued 6 years ago. Draggin' it around in the bush will do that.:) Our patrol is entirely equipped with Long Branch rifles.

We do have a consistent problem with the CMk3 rear sights, IE 2 out of 5 are garbage. They work fine, but the battle and peep sights are not square to each other, sometimes vertically, sometimes laterally. It's a manufacturing defect, not related to use.

I'm still choked they cut up the C1's rather than replace the No4's with them.:banghead:

I had a look at a Ranger's Enfields during a sov op back in 97. The rifle was dated 56, which was interesting. But the wood was beat, the external of the rifle rusted. This did not stop the fellow from dropping a Caribou with it and sharing some fresh rations with us.

We were to go on another sov op a couple years later, not quite as far North. The weapons section was tasked with inspecting and repairing the rifles up there, so they ordered 30 of everything along with a half dozen barrelled receivers (which were non accountable). Then, while talking with the LCMM in Ottawa, he was told to simply order new rifles (the DND had bought around 1000 of the no4mk2s from the British for this purpose) and exchange them. Rifles are an 'S' class item (controlled by serial number) so I am not sure how that would have worked out.
Anyway, long story short, the ex got cancelled due to operational commitments of the aircraft at the last minute, and the parts languished for years in the weapons shop. A few wall plaques were created for some of the classroom walls from assembled and then deactivated Enfields.

Interesting to note that any rear sights ordered were in fact 800 yd jungle carbine sights. The DND must have been buying it's spares on the world market as well. Also, the forestocks were all that orange DCRA/ Cdn Arsenals new in the cardboard wrap type. The rest of the wood was original WW2 stuff.

Around 2004, I was told that Edmonton garrison weapons shop was busy inspecting another 1200-2000 or more no4mk?? bought from India. Some were for immediate issue and others were being put into stores in 1A (Edmonton) depot.

I am on the West coast, so our rifles are subject to salt air. I had heard that our fearless leaders had bought some of the No.4 Mk.2 rifles, but I haven't seen any here. A pity, the No.4 Mk2. is a far better weapon then the LONGBRANCH. I haven't seen any of the ones from INDIA yet, either. Wonder how they look. One of the rangers told me that if a rifle gets sent to VICTORIA for repairs, it is first assessed to determine how long repairs will take. If repairs will take more than an hour, the rifle is stripped, and the action cut in half! I wonder if that story is true. The 1949 C No.4 Mk1* is the most common rifle here, with the crappy fabricated triggerguard. Those things are a cruel joke! Forever setting up the trigger pull when I had one. I gave away my last forged triggerguard to a ranger to use in competitions. He has to give it back before he turns in his rifle!

"Subjected to salt air" sounds like a euphemism for "not given proper care and maintenance." The Mk2 a "far better weapon" than the Long Branch Mk1*? Hardly. There are plenty of Faz Mk2's in the system now, the only thing that make them "better" is that they've seen less use. What does the "crappy triggerguard" have to do with anything?

The fabricated triggerguard is relatively flimsy, and because the trigger is pinned to the guard, any slight knock to the guard can, and often does, change the pull-off. Any military armourer can tell you all about the problems with these guards. The simple fact that the Mk2 has the trigger mounted directly to the action makes them a better weapon. And they all have the good Mk1 rear sight, too. The old style of bolt release on the Mk2 is far more positive than the Mk1* system. I have not seen a defective Mk2 safety, a common LONGBRANCH problem. Even some of the 1949 LB rifles have safety issues. The safety lever was pinned together from two seperate pieces,and they often develop play at the joint. They also wear at the edges of the bolthead release slot, sometimes causing the bolthead to flip up while cycling the bolt. This seems MUCH more common on SAVAGE rifles, though. How would you like that to happen, when JERRY is charging? Or the polar bear is attacking? A friend has a LB rifle that left the factory with only one groove in the barrel! How is that for quality control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

The fabricated triggerguard is relatively flimsy, and because the trigger is pinned to the guard, any slight knock to the guard can, and often does, change the pull-off. Any military armourer can tell you all about the problems with these guards. The simple fact that the Mk2 has the trigger mounted directly to the action makes them a better weapon. And they all have the good Mk1 rear sight, too. The old style of bolt release on the Mk2 is far more positive than the Mk1* system. I have not seen a defective Mk2 safety, a common LONGBRANCH problem. Even some of the 1949 LB rifles have safety issues. The safety lever was pinned together from two seperate pieces,and they often develop play at the joint. They also wear at the edges of the bolthead release slot, sometimes causing the bolthead to flip up while cycling the bolt. This seems MUCH more common on SAVAGE rifles, though. How would you like that to happen, when JERRY is charging? Or the polar bear is attacking? A friend has a LB rifle that left the factory with only one groove in the barrel! How is that for quality control?

---

Hmm... I've NEVER had a problem with a LB trigger guar OR a LB safety??? I've owned probably 20+ longbranches now too. In fact, I know for certain that many (most?) of the wartime expedient safeties in British service were retro-fitted with Longbranch "slipper style" safeties after the war out of the spares inventories. The milled guards are nicer, for sure, but frankly, they bend just as asily as the fabricated ones do. Bending these guards is part of fitting them to a rifle during forestock replacement. It's even in the armorer's instructions.

The Mk2 is a better trigger system, I agree, but the No.4Mk2 is not as well made a rifle as the typical Longbranch. The best of both worlds is probably a No.4Mk1/3 - essentially a Longbranch (or Savage) No.4 with the trigger upgraded to Mk2 specification.

Even better, if you could ever find one, would be a 1941 Longbranch converted to No.4Mk1/2 ;) If I ever find one, I'll never sell it - will become my designated "range Enfield".

I wonder what happened to all the LB No 4's the Army Cadet units had on their MIU. They were "confiscated" a number of years back when the lieberals didn't think young people aught to be shooting guns. I would have thought that these rifles would at least be re-issued to the Rangers. I know our unit had about 30 on our MIU. They were very well maintained and inspected/repaired annually by a reg force weapons tech. :banghead:

My experience with the No.4 Mk.2 rifles, and the LONGBRANCH rifles, is that LB spent more time on cosmetics than on functionality. The LB safety that looks like a boot will often let the cocking piece slip off the sear when you pull the trigger. When the safety is disengaged, the striker goes forward, catching the half cock notch. I have owned 12 LB rifles, and examined or repaired dozens more. I have seen at least 10 LB made safeties with this problem. I have only encountered this defect on one British rifle, and it had the LB safety. Don't people check these things? I was shocked to find that many of the Ranger rifles suffered from this defect. I once set up the trigger on my LB with the fabricated guard, had it perfect. When another shooter was firing it, she bumped the guard lightly on the wood shooting bench. The rifle instantly got a long, creepy first stage. One of the more competitive rangers ruined his pull off just by removing a magazine! My 1942 MALTBY survived tumbling down a rock slide, in my hands, with no problems at all. It even had a large scratch on the guard, yet the pull remained good. I have carried SAVAGE, LB, MALTBY, BSA, and FAZAKERLY No. 4 rifles for years while hunting and exploring. All have near mint bores, and except for the poor MALTBY, are in really great overall condition. While firing the SAVAGE one day, the bolt came back and almost broke my nose. A quarter inch sheared out of the guide channel, behind the bolthead removal slot. The head jumped out, and the bolt got pulled into my face. I have since examined a number of SAVAGE rifles with similar damage, many of which seem to have seen little use. I have also seen one LB like that. The WW2 FAZ was really crude, and not very accurate. The BSA was accurate, but so crude that I was ashamed to be seen with it! The 2 groove MALTBY was the most accurate of the ww2 No.4's, and looked quite nice. The No.4 Mk.2 rifles surpassed them all in both accuracy and fitting, though the finish wasn't as nice as the LB. Every time we have a .303 shoot, everyone wants to borrow the Mk.2. It has one many prizes, and with stock sights, easily beat a DCRA target rifle. This wasn't a new rifle, either, it shows quite a bit of use. It has the NAVY proofmark, with the N instead of P.

I submit that you have bad luck. Your 10 of 12 LB safeties having failed and your numerous splintered receiver areas leads me to believe either you are the unluckiest human being on the planet, or you had exceptionally bad rifles sold to you from some snake-oil salesman.

I'm afraid we may had to agree to disagree on this, but from the sounds of things, perhaps you might have better luck with some other pattern of rifle?

If those failure rates were ever observed in service, the Enfield would have been withdrawn during WW1 and replaced with the P14, or in ww2, they would have issued more dispersal MkIII's and a lot less No.4's.

I have often wondered if I might have had awful luck, but I must say, the only failure I have ever had with a Mk3 was one broken extractor spring. I pack a Mk3 now, 1911 vintage. I live in bear country, so it gets loaded and unloaded constantly, sometimes several times a day in the Summer. I have never had to shoot a bear, but I have complete confidence in the Mk.3 should the need arise. The problem with the SAVAGE bolthead guide channel cracking seems to be quite common. I bought my first SAVAGE from a small dealer about a decade ago. I didn't have it long when the rail sheared. A friend bought one, too, and a small chip cracked out of his at the front of the slot. Just enough that the bolthead flips up if you work the bolt too fast. When I brought this to the dealer's attention, he inspected his remaining rifles. He found that most of them exhibited at least some chipping of the release slot, and a few had whole pieces chipped out. He sent me the MALTBY for free, to replace the broken SAVAGE. He also sent another BRIT action to replace my friend's rifle. Since my SAVAGE action was B.E.R., I experimented a bit with it. A LIGHT tap with a small hammer was enough to break the entire guide rail off! The whole rail snapped away in one piece! This would seem to indicate an over hardened acton, similar to the EDDYSTONE P14. As I stated before, I have observed only a few LB rifles with chipped slots, despite seeing many more LB than SAVAGE rifles. These SAVAGE rifles were in original condition, with all Savage and LB wood and metal. They didn't show really hard use, either. The fact that these rifles could be brittle should be considered, when handloading for them. My experience soured me on SAVAGE No.4's so badly, that I no longer want to shoot them.

It has been my experience that after working with hundreds of No.4 Longbranch as well as the Mk.2 rifles over many years that, with very rare exceptions ,safety failures have been the result of inadequate training, abuse and negligence. The principle cause of failure is a broken or bent safety spring resulting from the incorrect practice of applying the safety with the bolt open. This practice also may result in the scoring of the bolt as well as deformation or fracture of the safety.

I had to reply to this one sorry.
The No4Mk2 does have some nice features that the CNo4Mk1* does not however it certainly is not a better rifle. I have owned many of both models, all great reliable rifles however the one I still own is a CNo4Mk1*.

With regards to Ranger rifles and their condition...
If a rifle requires maintenance or replacement the onus is on the Ranger to report it to his or her section commander.

The section commander will report to the 2 I/C or the Patrol Comander.

From there the weapon with be shipped to the armourers for repair or replacement.

Try to remember that most of these weapons have seen a considerable amount of ammunition and at times questionable levels or care, cleaning or maintenance in a 60 year window.

The bottom line is - Will the rifle reliable cycle ammunition to take down a charging, dangerous or otherwise nuisance black bear accurately within 20m? This is what I train my rangers to do.

This is the only time a Ranger will ever truly require the weapon as a self defense mechanism. If the Ranger is a shooter of competative nature then he or she needs to speak up and get the rifle replaced. Not all Rangers are interested in shooting - period. They seek the out door wilderness experience. The rifle is assigned simply because its part of the kit. Thats an entirely different story that I won't get into here.

If the Patrol command structure is dissengaged and frankly lethargic towards the material effectiveness of their Ranger's gear then the 2 I/C and the P/C need a flogging. These are the Patrols that cannot recruit or retain good Rangers.

I supplied about 50 Mk.1 sights to a troop some years ago, so I know there are a number out there with the Mk.1 sight. Almost cleaned the "shed" (tm) out...I think!!! :-)##

The Rangers here often prance around with their bolts open, safety on. I told them that this was NOT good for their rifles, and was told "who the #%$* do yo think you are?" But this isn't the problem with the safety, it was play in the pinned joint, where the lever joins the shaft. One of the Rangers spoke out about his rifle being unsuitable for target shooting, and it was replaced. He told me that he shouldn't have complained about the first one! One Ranger had a really rusty rifle, and I asked her if it was issued in that condition. She proudly said"No, I just don't clean it! They were made to be abused! Haven't cleaned it since I got it!" Maybe we should just by the Rangers CARCANOS, and forget about the L.E. altogether. Or else give the L.E. to Rangers that really show an interest in shooting, and wooden drill rifles to the ones that don't.

That is a Patrol with a complete command absence and does not reflect 4 CRPG. I would very much like to know which Patrol you are referring to by pm if that is possible K31. I can guaratee complete anonymity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riflechair

That is a Patrol with a complete command absence and does not reflect 4 CRPG. I would very much like to know which Patrol you are referring to by pm if that is possible K31. I can guaratee complete anonymity.

---

What he said. If our Det. MWO or one of the Sgt.s saw us show up with a rusty rifle, a thorough a$$ kicking would ensue.

I have seen many Ranger issue rifles that were badly rusted. Not unusual for ones to be brought to me before an inspection to have the scab rust wirewheeled off. The rifles were basically considered write-offs when issued, replacements being issued as necessary. It is amazing how rapidly a brand new Long Branch can be ruined by neglect and abuse.

AMEN! I'm certain that some of the CNo.4 Mk1* rifles were new in the grease when they were issued up here, now they look like something from that Afghan weapons cache!

Can you imagine what would have happened to the C1 rifles, had they been given to the Rangers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

AMEN! I'm certain that some of the CNo.4 Mk1* rifles were new in the grease when they were issued up here, now they look like something from that Afghan weapons cache!

---

Possibly worse. Sea coast, salt water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

Can you imagine what would have happened to the C1 rifles, had they been given to the Rangers?

---

You seem to have an axe to grind against the entire Ranger program due to your experience with one Patrol. Do not continue to disparage all of us for the actions of some.

If you chose to keep insulting dedicated Rangers like Riflechair and myself, take it somewhere else.

I don't dispute that some Rangers are lousy at looking after their kit as tiriaq says. However, that does not hold true for all.

At one time, there were 3 LB No. 4T rifles with 32TP (Lyman Alaskan) scopes held at NRHQ in YK. They were supposed to be issued into the Eastern Arctic. The WO responsible knew how rare these rifles were, and would not issue them East, because he knew what would happen to them. AFAIK, they were diverted to the Yukon.

Yes, I have noticed, in photos of the Northern patrols, that some of them still carry old SMLE's, that appear to be in great shape. I didn't intend to disrespect the Rangers, and am very sorry if I did. The local patrol got off to a really bad start here, the first patrol leader was a real winner, and the second one, almost as bad. But the new leader has really turned the patrol around, and the bad apples are gone now. I am considering joining the patrol, myself. But I, and even many of the Rangers, believe that issuing the C1 would have been a mistake. They would have to put much more emphasis on rifle training, and, in any case, the C1 would gobble up the ammo at an alarming rate! Imagine having a semi-auto with free ammo? I guess it would encourage more practice. Personally, I think the government had the right idea when they issued the .30WCF M94 carbines during the war. They were light, easy to shoot, already familiar to most outdoorsmen, and reasonably powerful. They also stand up remarkably well in the woods. I sometimes see the odd one even today. They are still in use by hunters, and some I would swear have never been cleaned! I have yet to see one with the original sling fittings, though. When the weapons were issued to Rangers during the war, the guys with the M17 always tried to trade with the guys with 30-30's. One guy got a ROSS, and he was most displeased! The bolt "fell" overboard while he was cleaning it! He got a WINCHESTER M17 as a replacement. During the war, some of the Rangers even got STEN guns. I have photos of them ventilating sea lions with them! IMAGINE! The government trusting the people with automatic weapons! How things have changed! One fellow told me that the PCMR's trained on the L.E. , 30-30, M17, STEN, and BREN.

There are no SMLE's in service with the Rangers.

I saw an article somewhere, I think LEGION magazine, but I can't remember, which showed an INUIT fellow with his rifle, an SMLE. Also, there was a NATURE of THINGS episode which showed an INUIT lady who had shot a polar bear with an SMLE. I seem to recall seeing them in a READER's DIGEST article a few years back, too. Of course, this was a decade ago, things have probably changed.

The photos must have been taken many years ago. There were no SMLEs issued in the past 30 years. Were likely privately owned surplus rifles.
The WW2 PCMR and the Canadian Rangers are not the same organization, although the modern Ranger program had its roots in the WW2 experience. The PCMR were the first Cdn. formation to be issued Stens during WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

Personally, I think the government had the right idea when they issued the .30WCF M94 carbines during the war. They were light, easy to shoot, already familiar to most outdoorsmen, and reasonably powerful. They also stand up remarkably well in the woods.

---

That would be a most horrendous mistake. I am glad you are not in charge to implement this change!

The Winchester 94 is a great gun in the WOODS. It is a POS above the Canadian Shield on the tundra. The Extraction is not positive enough under very cold conditions (think minus 30 celsius BEFORE wind chill). No inuit use it for hunting that I know of. It rapidly becomes unreliable in very cold weather.

I like the 94 and even sometimes carry mine, but it is NOT an arctic solution. In the artic it is a problem. Rounds tend to stick in the chambers and the extractor slips off the cartridge rim, causing a hopeless jam. That is the LAST thing you would want confronting a polar bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

I saw an article somewhere, I think LEGION magazine, but I can't remember, which showed an INUIT fellow with his rifle, an SMLE. Also, there was a NATURE of THINGS episode which showed an INUIT lady who had shot a polar bear with an SMLE. I seem to recall seeing them in a READER's DIGEST article a few years back, too. Of course, this was a decade ago, things have probably changed.

---

Not all Inuit are in the Rangers.

Yes, the 94 could be problematic in the Arctic. I was just thinking about the West Coast guys. The old 94's had a depression on top of the bolt, so you could press the extractor down with your thumb if it wasn't gripping. In any case, I wouldn't want to face a polar bear with a 30-30! I heard somewhere that the PCMR also had the 336 MARLIN, is this true? I have never seen one so marked. How many STENS were issued to them? What happened to the SMLE's? Were the Rangers given the option to buy them? I read that some second generation INUIT Rangers were using their Father's rifles.

Not sure on the rest (rangers who are mambers can answer) but Marlins WERE issued to the PCMR. Not the 336. It was the Model 1936.

This is simply the Model 1893, re-designated as the Model 1936 and then again re-designated as the Model 36 in 1937.

Such a rifle would be C-broad arrowed.

Saw a rack of these C/l\ Marlins for sale at Hallam's Sporting Goods on Yonge St. back in the '60s. They were in very nice shape, don't know if they were ex-PCMR; it was suggested at the time that they were Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys.
While it is possible that a young Inuk Ranger had the same rifle his father had used, I would suspect that the journalist confused the "same rifle" and "same type of rifle". Who knows? Not all Inuit abuse and neglect their equipment by any means. I replaced a sear in a sported 1896 MLE that had been used in the same family since at least the 1930s. It was certainly in serviceable condition.
Model 1892, 1894, 1895 Winchesters, Savage 1899s in .303 and .250-3000 were all used in the North. I even fished the remains of a Lee Speed sporting rifle out of Hudson's Bay. Saw .280 Ross cases found along the Maguse River valley on the west coast of Hudson's Bay. But '94 Winchesters are no longer common on the Barrens. Most of the ones I saw were ones brought north by Southerners who had moved north. One factor is the calibre. Most Inuit hunters prefer something flat shooting with light recoil. .22-.250 and .223 are very popular. The stainless rifles have a real following, because they don't turn colour as fast. Injection moulded synthetic stocks do break in the cold.

I have seen some Inuit guns, and I was surprised to find them in much better shape than our west coast guns. A fellow brought me a PCMR 94 once, that he wanted cleaned. I had to drill and replace several screws, and I had the metal soaking in kerosene for a week, trying to dissolve the rust. I must add, though, that the rifle was still functioning perfectly when he brought it to me! Spruce needles are the bane of most rifles out here, they find their way into everything. They are the reason I believe the 94 is more suited to the woods, they pretty much seal out most of the needles. You can't get away from them either! They fall from the trees constantly. Whenever I carry a LEE ENFIELD in the woods, I use the breech cover to keep the needles out. They don't usually cause problems with the SMLE, but they will jam a No.4. You can blow them out easily on the SMLE, but they accumulate under the rear sight on the No.4 rifles. This cost me a deer once. I surprised it as I emerged from a spruce thicket, and when I went to shoot, the bolt wouldn't open all the way. By the time I cleaned it out, the deer was gone. Good thing it wasn't a hungry bear.

Oh man.... just hearing about ANY rust on a service issued boomstick makes me cringe.... Sorry to hear about the patrol's rifles being rusty and some of the attitudes about 'not cleaning my issued riflr.' WTF :eek:

Peace out

Barney

Yeah, it sure is heartbreaking to see. The 30-30 wasn't owned by a ranger, his grandpa was a PCMR. He must be rolling in his grave, I think he would have wanted his rifle to be taken care of better. They sold them after the war for $5 to the guys who carried them, I even have the receipt for a EDDYSTONE M17, but the government identifies it as a SPRINGFIELD in the records. Lots of M17's are still around from those days. The current Ranger patrol is taking better care of the rifles, but many of them have rifles that are quite badly worn, and are really too far gone for accurate shooting. I wonder if the government could afford some new barrels, and maybe a teflon finish? Even the black stove paint might help. It is hard for people to have pride in their equipment when it looks worn out to start, I often hear guys grumbling about being given worn out rifles.

I'd agree that the Mk2s from 1954/55 are the best of the British-built No4s and in terms of design functionality (aside from the Trials rifles), the best No4s period. That MkI* modification was a big mistake, and it's hard to see the necessity for it, since manufacturing in Canada and the US was under less pressure than that in the UK. The Mk2s also have a smaller diameter cut out in the underside of the receiver just forward of the butt socket. Not sure that makes any difference in use, but it may reduce receiver flex. Have never noticed any problem with LB safeties, but then the one's I've owned and handled have been in pretty nice condition. The post-war rifles should be the best in terms of quality on either side of the Atlantic. The trigger on the guard was a poor idea and why they held it over from the No1 to the No4 is anyone's guess.

Considering Long Branch was built up from bare earth in 1940 I'd say they did damn well. As did REL.

All of the modifications received War Department approval, so presumably there were trials first.

Will have to look more closely at the 'lady slipper' safeties from now on.

This thread demonstrates why building the No4 in stainless steel specifically for the Rangers was considered.

Gees, I thought you fellas up their were saddled up with The Parker Hale 82 or something like that (the most accurate rifle I've ever shot that I didn't build)SDH

I never could figure out why LB and SAVAGE switched production to the Mk.1*, either. You would think that it would take almost as long to mill the bolthead release slot as it would the channel for the Mk.1 bolthead release, and as the small parts mostly came from feeder factories, the extra part wouldn't make much difference to production. A Korean war vet recently told me about the bolthead on his rifle flipping up during a Chinese attack, but he didn't remember if it was a LONGBRANCH made rifle. I think it must have been, because when I showed him a No.4 Mk1, he had never seen one with that type of bolt release. He said that he wished his rifle had that system. A stainless N0.4 would sure be neat! One of those, with a laminated stock, Mk.2 trigger, and Mk.1 sight would be the ultimate Ranger rifle. Many of the Rangers, though, have expressed interest in the No.5 carbine. Maybe the stainless, laminated No.5 with a Mk2 trigger would be best. Wouldn't that look neat!?!

There's no need to go to the crazy expense of new-build stainless Lee-Enfield rifles. The army just needs to buy a bunch of these Savage 10FCM "Scout" rifles. They're 3 pounds lighter, in a modern calibre and easily scope-able for us older guys. One of these with an Aimpoint on it would rock.

https://www.milsurps.com/imagehostin...646d4d5c1d.jpg

Hey, that would be great! But it would be nice to have a laminated stock. Those synthetic ones suck in the Winter! C-O-L-D!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

Hey, that would be great! But it would be nice to have a laminated stock. Those synthetic ones suck in the Winter! C-O-L-D!

---

Everything is cold in the winter. I'll take the lighter weight, thank you.

I have seen too many broken injection moulded stocks broken in the cold. There was consideration given to a version of the Ruger 77Mk.II stainless. Ruger was prepared to mould a Ranger motif into the reecess of the paddle stock. This idea was scuppered because a) of cost, and, b) minimum order was for 5,000 units. I also suggested that the Ruger stock could be broken too easily, and the Ruger rear sight is fragile.
But a rugged commercial type rifle would meet the needs of the Ranger program. Scope mounting option would be an asset. Consideration could be given to a 5.56 or 7.62 version, or both, depending on where the rifles were to be issued.

I never cared much for that Ruger stock, it seems to flexible. I remember looking on the Rangers website a few years ago, and it showed a No.4 converted to 7.62, with a scope, bipod, synthetic stock, etc. They said that consideration was being given to converting the stock of No.4's to 7.62. What a mistake! Imagine the expense, and all the other "improvements" would make the rifle weigh even more than it does now. I think STEVO has the right idea about the Savage, but I still think a laminated wood stock would be better in the arctic. I see fewer problems with Savage and Ruger rifles than most other commercial rifles, but I have no idea how the new Savage Accutrigger would hold up under rough service. I think the standard trigger would probably be better.

Bear in mind, the Enfields are built to take years of hard abuse to military specs. The Savages are NOT built to milspec and NOT built to take that kind of abuse. The Synth might seem like a good idea. Show of hands - how many people remember the early C7 stocks and their cold weather performance? Milspec was subsequently altered to a more durable product. Has the Savage undergone similar testing? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K31

I never cared much for that Ruger stock, it seems to flexible. I remember looking on the Rangers website a few years ago, and it showed a No.4 converted to 7.62, with a scope, bipod, synthetic stock, etc. They said that consideration was being given to converting the stock of No.4's to 7.62. What a mistake! Imagine the expense, and all the other "improvements" would make the rifle weigh even more than it does now. I think STEVO has the right idea about the Savage, but I still think a laminated wood stock would be better in the arctic. I see fewer problems with Savage and Ruger rifles than most other commercial rifles, but I have no idea how the new Savage Accutrigger would hold up under rough service. I think the standard trigger would probably be better.

---

I agree. A modern laminate would be FAR superior to Zytel. If a choice had to be made between a Savage and a Ruger, I would suggest a Ruger with some mods to include:

-BEAD BLASTED matte Stainless version.
-Trigguer guard and floorplate assembly changed to the stronger 1-piece steel assembly available from Brownells.
-NO SCOPE. Devise a peep sight for the rifle. Scopes won;t take the abuse some of the inuit will subject the rifle to.
-7.62 as a minimum. NOT 5.56. There be polar bears up there!
-Actions should be gauged to ensure they do not have a negative slope on the sides (common on Rugers) - this prevents bedding. All these rifles should be bedded IMHO.
-Ditch the stock safety and go for the Mauser-type flag. WAY more reliable.

Sounds good, I'll take one!

No thank you.
I need a rear vernier sight that will allow me to shoot accurately out to 500 metres. Additionally in a calibre I can stop a bear with.

Frankly I see no reason why we can't just rebarrel the No4 Enfield and remanufacture as many parts as we need. I don't mind sticking with the .303 Brit.

Regardless of that I have recently been informed that the Rangers are:
1. Getting New Uniforms
2. Getting new Rifles

Don't expect to see anything within the next two years (or more).
The Rangers are on the cusp of some considerable change and are ramping up for a much more serious military support role.

It is my understanding that the new rifle will be:
1. A Bolt Action
2. In 7.62 NATO

Outside of that no one is talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riflechair

It is my understanding that the new rifle will be:
1. A Bolt Action
2. In 7.62 NATO

Outside of that no one is talking.

---

Further to that, also will have:

-rail for a scope,
-synthetic stock.

Will be replaced by Patrol Group in numerical order, which puts us 4th in line, Richard. Don't expect to see anything for at least 4 years. I can't imagine a vernier sight coming as standard equipment on any replacement rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

Further to that, also will have:

-rail for a scope,
-synthetic stock.

Will be replaced by Patrol Group in numerical order, which puts us 4th in line, Richard. Don't expect to see anything for at least 4 years. I can't imagine a vernier sight coming as standard equipment on any replacement rifle.

---

I was told by someone who would know, that there is a "sh-t-load" of No4s in Borden for the Rangers, so unless there is a lack of techs to service them, or it has been decided to go for a throw-away rifle, I'd doubt there will be any big changes soon.

Perhaps the Gov't should run a few courses on basic rifle maintenance before issuing any rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldhound

Perhaps the Gov't should run a few courses on basic rifle maintenance before issuing any rifles.

---

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

---

I mean that when someone receives a rifle from the gov't for whatever reason. They are responsible for it and it should be looked after and in a working state. There is no excuse . If this is not being done they shoudn't have them.

For those of us south of the border, what exactly is a "Ranger" in Canada? Are we talking ranger as in a back country ranger like in the US National Park system? Or ranger as in a military unit? Or an auxiary to the RCMP? I've met ranger in the provincial park system in Ontario when visiting family but I don't recall them being armed with a long gun.

Canadian Rangers are the opposite the US Army Rangers and only vaguely similar to parrk rangers. They are in fact Canadian Forces Reservists, who are issued .303BR bolt action rifles as part of their personal equipment.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/7_5_1.asp

They also give us spiffy red hoodies and hats.:)

"Class picture" from the first winter survival school my Patrol ran for Regular and Reserve CF troops.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irish John

For those of us south of the border, what exactly is a "Ranger" in Canada? Are we talking ranger as in a back country ranger like in the US National Park system? Or ranger as in a military unit? Or an auxiary to the RCMP? I've met ranger in the provincial park system in Ontario when visiting family but I don't recall them being armed with a long gun.

---

I think the Rangers were formed during WW2. They patroled the North and the Canadian Arctic, and have been doing so ever since. They have been a valuable asset for the Gov't and are respected by everyone. Apparently the old Enfields are just about wore out so I hope they get new rifles from this Gov't. I have no doubt thro that if threatened the rangers could react in a most efficient manner. PS I also would bet a dollar that there are some rangers that would keep there Enfields with the rear aperture sight. The ones that can hit a seal in the head at 200 yards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldhound

I think the Rangers were formed during WW2. They patroled the North and the Canadian Arctic, and have been doing so ever since. They have been a valuable asset for the Gov't and are respected by everyone. Apparently the old Enfields are just about wore out so I hope they get new rifles from this Gov't. I have no doubt thro that if threatened the rangers could react in a most efficient manner. PS I also would bet a dollar that there are some rangers that would keep there Enfields with the rear aperture sight. The ones that can hit a seal in the head at 200 yards.

---

The Pacific Coast Militia Rangers were formed during WWII. Not the same as the current organization.

There are still lots of No4's in stores. Unless we start breaking them in record numbers, they'll be around for a while yet. Keeping your Army issued rifle when ordered to turn it in will get you a visit from the MPs.

Having handled numerous rifle designs in the harsh conditions of wilderness traplines (from Coastal, southern interior, central interior and yukon border region)....it is damn hard to beat a #4 303 rifle....a #5 is a heck of a lot handier...the EAL would have been a great rifle for general issue to the rangers in my humble opinion.....having handled FN C1's in muddy trench situations I'd rather have a #4....I've had remington 700's fail, Pre-64 Model 70s fail....my 98 mausers in ORIGINAL chambering worked great but some of the 308's misfeed from time to time.....fact is I prefer the 10 shot #4 303 advantage in big bear areas...the only shots fired at a bear in anger was into the ground between me and a 5-600lbs grizz at 30 feet.....3 rounds into the gravel between us spaying him with gravel....he decided to withdraw....had he not I still had 7 more rounds... ....not 3 as in a Mauser..... I do have a action cover I use in realy harsh snowy weather as I have heard that #4's will misfire if snow and ice are allowed to build up around the striker.....I'd be in no hurry to trade off for some modern stainless 308 built to sporting rifle specs...a #4 is a fine shooting piece.....

I grew up in Canada, but moved to the US 22 years ago. I don't recall hearing about the Rangers, but then my firearms interests have greatly expanded since coming to the US.

Can someone describe the Rangers for me and others? This new linkage between CSP and Milsurp is opening lots of interesting doors to learn from our Canadian friends.

Well, my question about Rangers stemmed from a post I saw while looking at the list of new posts. As such it was without the context of the rest of the thread above, that I now see. Thanks, I think I have enough info now.:super:

The milled trigger guard is superior to the light stamped version, and is always used on competition #4's. Milled guards as you can guess stay put in a glassed action or when they are re-enforced with additional soldered steel. On run of the mill Ranger service rifles that get heavily used I can see the advantage of milled guards. As for safety problems, the catch and the spring get worn and can easily be replaced.
I have been on the range with the West Coast Rangers and did some tech. work for them too. I know some their rifles are near the end.

Just an update on the Canadian Ranger Rifle.
A "higher up" has reported that the new rifle is at least ten years away....
And No.4 Rifles built in Pakistan are currently being issued.
Some are in very nice shape.

This is interesting. Are they coming direct from Pakistan, or via captures by India? Are they the Mk II's, or Mk1's? How many? This is intriguing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10x

Just an update on the Canadian Ranger Rifle.
A "higher up" has reported that the new rifle is at least ten years away....
And No.4 Rifles built in Pakistan are currently being issued.
Some are in very nice shape.

---

They are No. 4. Mk II rifles. We sighted one in today.
I have to correct myself. The guns ( in very nice shape) were bought from Pakistan - they are not manufactured there. The rifle today was ROF (made in England). These were very likely purchased by Pakistan from the U.K. in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
I have no idea of how many but some higher ups believe there are about 4,000 sitting in reserve. I have no idea of what Mks these are or their origins.

BTW the rifle we sighted in got a couple of 2" groups (five and ten shot) with the flip up ladder sight. our 2ic hit the ram at 500M with his last five shots - 150 grain I.V.I. issue ammo.

The ball is 174gr., 10x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

The ball is 174gr., 10x.

---

Thank you for that correction Stevo!

Question: Has the Valmet Hunter ever been used by the Rangers?

The reason I ask is that I have read in several places that the reason it escaped being prohibited was that some of them had been issued to rangers.

On the face of it it seems a good choice, it has the action of an AK..reliability in arctic conditions should be assured, well built with excellent sights and readily available scope mounts and it can be had in 223 or 7.62.

Now I am not recomending it for a current buy ( they are out of production after all ), but it would seem sound reasoning for anyone who may have been looking for a modern ranger rifle in the 90's.

Any of you rangers ever seen one in service or is this another myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNC1

Question: Has the Valmet Hunter ever been used by the Rangers?

The reason I ask is that I have read in several places that the reason it escaped being prohibited was that some of them had been issued to rangers.

On the face of it it seems a good choice, it has the action of an AK..reliability in arctic conditions should be assured, well built with excellent sights and readily available scope mounts and it can be had in 223 or 7.62.

Now I am not recomending it for a current buy ( they are out of production after all ), but it would seem sound reasoning for anyone who may have been looking for a modern ranger rifle in the 90's.

Any of you rangers ever seen one in service or is this another myth.

---

No, this is a myth.
A new Ranger rifle is being considered. A major who should know has let it out that the "new" ranger rifle is at least ten years away. They have enough lee enfields for issue and spares for at least ten years, and the caliber will most likely be .308.
A long long time ago winchester 94s were issued to rangers - they have been out of the system for many, many years.

In the records of the debates over the Ross Rifle there were complaints by those organizations using the various Lee Enfield rifles (Constabulary or Militia , perhaps Mounted Police I suppose) about the firing pin not having enough clearance, which caused many misfires in winter weather.
I suppose that modern low temperature lubricants would have reduced this problem. Not many good low temp lubes were available back then.

Arctic explorers often prefered the much simpler Remington Rolling Block rifles, since these could be operated without any lube at all.

Perhaps some Rangers have rusty rifles because they were always taught to not lube the rifle in cold weather.

Salt air can rust a rifle in hours if not well protected, I used to live in Florida ( about 35 years ago) and saw quite a few new rifles get badly rusted within months of purchase, and sometimes on the racks of smaller shops before ever being sold.
Mountain air here can be almost as bad, the "finish" of many older rifles and shotguns look more like and old cross cut saw, browned like a Brown Bess barrel by daily accumulation of fine rust and the occasional wipe down with whatever oil is handy.
Sometimes the hand prints of a previous owner are rusted deeply into a shotgun frame, each finger forming a noticable groove in the surface, the fingerprints clearly visible on polishing a century later.

Seems like the Ranger Enfields would have been given a good painted finish before being issued, if not then those in service would probably benefit from getting one before rust gets any worse.

Danish troops assigned to similar duties are still issued Bolt Action rifles in .30/06, Some M1917 rifles may still be in inventory from the literature. Like the confusion over the British calling the M1917 rifle a Springfield there seems to be a tendency for the Danes to label Model 70 Winchesters issued for arctic duty as M1917 rifles because these are also in .30/06. They identify the rifle with the shared cartridge.

The tendency for some No.4 Mk I* bolt heads to rotate out of the track seems to me to be due to vertical tilt of the front of the bolt due to excessive clearance at the rear of the reciver. Due either to a poorly fitted bolt body or spreading of the receiver walls.
The clearance cut for the front lefthand magazine feed lip appears to have removed more metal than it should on receivers I've examined that have displayed a tendency for the bolt head to jump the track.
Some of the Savage receivers I've looked at had cuts far deeper and wider than others.
The modification may cause no problem if everything else about the receiver is spot on, but the oversize cut of some receivers coupled with a worn or ill fitting bolt wouldn't have shown up in testing of earlier and better made rifles.

Bending the lefthand lip upwards just enough to contact the bolt head as it passes that point has all but eliminated this problem on a couple of these rifles.

As for minor defects of some Long Branch rifles. It would appear that much of the later WW2 production ended up being sent to allies like China, where reports on performance in the field would be sketchy at best.


The Black bear around here seldom get over 300 pounds, with less than 200 lb more common , but I have been charged by an old and rather surly specimen that would go 350 lb or better.
Luckily a small stream between us distracted the bear. They seem to get a bit paranoid of losing their footing on wet rocks. At least thats how this old fellow reacted.
Since I had only a camera and no weapons at all its a good thing.
I didn't turn away from the bear, but I guess I set the worlds record for the moonwalk. Not turning away probably made the difference.
A .303 would be more useful than a camera, but even the .30/06 would be a bit light for a big Brown, Grizz , or Polar Bear.

BTW
I didn't get a picture of the bear, had other things on my mind, plus a flash going off would not have helped matters.

John Sukey left a comment on a thread about EAL rifles not being able to stand up to the rigors of Ranger use. I have two models, one civilian and one military. I realise that there were several variations of each and so they can be hard to pin down. Because of the variations, his statement may bear some credence.
Looking at mine, I really can't see any reason for them to fail before a full wood No4 MkI*. The only real weak spot I can see is the forward sling swivel. Other than that, they look pretty robust and reliable.
I've never fired either of them, although the civie has seen previous use, the military version looks to be unissued and unfired other than the original test rounds. Because of this lack of use I really can't give a knowledgeable reply to John Sukey's reply. I would appreciate a first hand opinion from a Ranger that carried one.

It's been a long time since the EAL's have been used by Rangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhunter

John Sukey left a comment on a thread about EAL rifles not being able to stand up to the rigors of Ranger use. I have two models, one civilian and one military. I realise that there were several variations of each and so they can be hard to pin down. Because of the variations, his statement may bear some credence.
Looking at mine, I really can't see any reason for them to fail before a full wood No4 MkI*. The only real weak spot I can see is the forward sling swivel. Other than that, they look pretty robust and reliable.
I've never fired either of them, although the civie has seen previous use, the military version looks to be unissued and unfired other than the original test rounds. Because of this lack of use I really can't give a knowledgeable reply to John Sukey's reply. I would appreciate a first hand opinion from a Ranger that carried one.

---

I strongly suspect the EAL was looked at by a committee who liked the No 4. and decided it was worth neither the time, trouble, or expense to adopt the rifle. Who knows what goes through the minds of selection committees?

I have it from the National Authority that the new rifle will be manufactured on a ready made action unique to the Ranger program (not commercial). Additionally it will be a bolt action in 7.62 NATO, detachable 10 round mag, composite stock and will come with a removeabe .22LR Barrel insert. Was advised that Colt Canada has the contract and that we could expect delivery of the rifle by 2017.

Reason for the delay is a batch of refurbished (or new) No4Mk2 rifles that were procured prior to entering into a contract with Colt Canada. These rifles will be fed through the system prior to sending them down to us.

We're also getting a new uniform.
Yup its still red.

I talked with Ian Skennerton last weekend and he told me that the new Ranger rifles will be based on the AIA M10 Enfield derived rifles, be in 7.62 NATO and made by Colt Canada. He was very firm in his assertions.

I told him if this was true, it would be very nice for Colt Canada to also produce these for the civilian market, but I doubted so considering their (Diemaco's) history with refusing to consider a semi auto AR for the Canadian civilian market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hal O'Peridol

I talked with Ian Skennerton last weekend and he told me that the new Ranger rifles will be based on the AIA M10 Enfield derived rifles, be in 7.62 NATO and made by Colt Canada. He was very firm in his assertions.

I told him if this was true, it would be very nice for Colt Canada to also produce these for the civilian market, but I doubted so considering their (Diemaco's) history with refusing to consider a semi auto AR for the Canadian civilian market.

---

Civilians would not be able to afford the end product if it was made in Canada by Colt Canada.

Composite stock?:rolleyes: Better come with electrically heated butt stock and forend then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Composite stock?:rolleyes: Better come with electrically heated butt stock and forend then.

---

I would hope that there is a cold weather evaluation on composite stocks. My experience is that they are slippery in the cold. Also plastic tends to expand and contract more than wood with extreme temperatures. I would be concerned about a point of impact change between plus 25C and minus 40C. I have shot very few rifles at temperatures colder than minus 30C and it was too cold to figure out why the groups were so big.